Grievance Case Summary - G-469

This grievance relates to two isolated post vacation travel grievances filed by the Grievor in 2006 (2006 grievances). In those instances, he sought a payment of monies incurred on different trips under various isolated post policies. The grievances were denied at Level I, and referred to Level II. The ERC recommended that one be allowed and the other be allowed in part. The Commissioner of the RCMP has yet to render a decision in either cases.

However, note that shortly after the 2006 grievances were submitted, the Force asked the Respondent to examine both matters, plus about 20 other cases involving similar issues. The Respondent ultimately informed the Grievor that he did not believe that isolated post policy permitted the Force to pay the Grievor's desired expenses. He indicated that his opinion did not end the 2006 grievances, and that the Grievor could proceed with them.

The Grievor grieved the Respondent's failure to resolve the 2006 grievances despite allegedly clear verbal and written directions to do so. He also expressed various concerns about the Respondent's purported failure to contact him as part of the formal Early Resolution phases.

The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance on the ground that the Grievor had no standing. He indicated that the issue grieved was already being addressed in the 2006 grievances.

The ERC found that the crux of the grievance really involved the RCMP's decision to withhold the Grievor's isolated post vacation travel expenses. The Grievor identified the alleged financial harm that he incurred from that decision as the only prejudice that he suffered, and he sought a payment of the withheld monies as his sole remedy. The ERC noted that any disputes the Grievor had with the Force's handling of his expense claims should have been, and indeed were, raised and addressed during the 2006 grievances. Therefore, it found that because there were other processes under the RCMP Act for dealing with the issue raised in this matter, the Grievor had no standing to bring a separate grievance on the same point.

The ERC made some further comments. It noted that the record did not support the Grievor's contention that the Respondent was directed to pay his expense claims. It also explained that the Respondent's review and opinions were simply steps taken in the 2006 grievances. Lastly, it observed that, in this case, it did not matter whether the Respondent's intervention occurred as part of Early Resolution or as part of a separate informal resolution attempt.

The ERC recommends to the Commissioner of the RCMP that the grievance be denied.

The Commissioner has rendered a decision in this matter, as summarized by his office:

In a decision dated September 15, 2011, the Commissioner found that the Grievor did not have standing. The Respondent had attempted to assist in the informal resolution of the Grievor’s other grievances. The Commissioner wrote that steps taken by a third party to assist in early resolution cannot constitute a new, grievable, decision, even if the Grievor is dissatisfied with that assistance or opinion regarding the possibility of resolution. The Grievor’s recourse was to continue the two substantive grievance processes, which he did. The Commissioner agreed with the ERC and denied the grievance.